I think this topic deserves some serious, thoughtful discussion away from the Deland incident thread.

First, I think it is important that newbies use an RSL. Until a person has proven they can not only chop but also pull their reserve (perhaps even more than once) it is too great a risk.

Many of my reasons to not use an RSL involve concern about very low probability events. I recognize this. I can accept myself failing to pull my own reserve, but I don't like being subject to the potential problems that an RSL can cause, even if they will probably be less likely than my own failure (even if they are certainly less likely than my own failure).

My reasons do not involve a worry about reserve line twists. It is my opinion that line twists on reserves largely are due to the bag being extracted while not stable therefore imparting an unusual kick to the bag as it leaves the container. This does not mean that I advocate waiting to get stable before pulling reserve (I have never waited), but I like the idea of having that as an option without having to find and release an RSL shackle.

I don't loosen my chest strap, so I don't have my reserve handle moving on me. I use a metal reserve handle and one hand on each handle method, so I find the handle before chopping.

I like to keep things simple, and there are failure modes that I don't like being subject to that involve an RSL.

An RSL can get snagged pulling the reserve even before the main is out.

Even though I use wide risers, I don't like the idea of a single riser failure causing my reserve to be deployed.

I don't like having my main attached to me by another mechanism besides the risers, as the RSL could get hung up on something preventing a normal cutaway.

If I have a canopy collision/entanglement, you can't be sure that the entanglement will clear right away after chopping. If I have a 2 out situation, I would want to release the RSL (if I were using an RSL) before cutting away the main, as the RSL shackle can snag any part of the reserve on the way out, and I would not want to have to mess with releasing the shackle in either a collision/entanglement or 2 out scenario.

There are probably some other reasons I've not thought of right now.

I know that the numbers say an RSL is more likely to help than hurt. I've read Rick Horn's incident and understand the implications.

IMO, you are raising very rare complicating scenarios where an RSL could contribute to a fatality (like, less than 1 in several million on any given skydive; such as an RSL snag causing a premature reserve deployment: exactly how many fatalites have been due to that?) but ignoring the upside.

As Diablo pilot stated in the thread Bigun linked to, the number of fatalities due to these failure modes over the last couple of decades is incredibly few relative to the several fataliies that occur every year that might have been helped by an RSL.

Yes, your gear and your experience and your usual proceedures and techniques might make you less likely to need one. But I suspect some of the many who did die because they didn't have one also thought that as well.

Either way, no one is well served by having information hidden from them. However, included in that information is the likelihood of its happening.

I'm from the days when only students used Stevens systems (that should date me if nothing else ). I've proven entirely too repeatedly that I can use my reserve. When I got back into jumping a number of years ago, I immediately had the RSL taken off the rig I bought.

Then I put it back on again a couple of years after that. To me, the biggest reason to have an RSL isn't to ensure that the reserve is pulled. The biggest reason is to ensure that in the event I mess around with my main when I shouldn't I have a little bit more effective altitude in my pocket. I haven't done that, I hope I don't. But after a couple of low-cutaway incidents a number of years ago, I decided that was the most likely RSL-involved situation I was likely to find myself in. People do, in fact, mess around with almost-fixable mains for too long -- it happens a couple of times each year, and often one of those is fatal. I'm sure none of those people intended to mess around with their almost-fixable main for too long, it just happened.

It's not a serious enough consideration for me to get a Skyhook, nor is it a serious enough consideration for me to start opening at 4,000 feet or something to ensure more time.

There are lots and lots of tradeoffs in the sport. Sundevil has some valid considerations, it's just that he assigns more importance to them than to others. I assign a different value to them.

If you choose to not jump an RSL and are educated as to why/ why not I think that is just fine. I jump a lot of video, did shit tons of research and do not wear an RSL on one rig (but do have a skyhook on the other...but that's another story).

I appreciate that you pointed out that the odds say (drastically) that you are much more likely to be saved by an RSL than hurt by it. I wish I remember the link the the uspa study showing the number of fatalities that would have been non issues with an RSL vs the number of RSL related problems).

For me the biggest RSL issue is the way it causes reserve PC/Bag/etc. to come up under arms/necks/ and past heads when cutting away from a fast spinning mal on your back. Please note, this is only an issue for me due to the mains I jump and the fact I have a camera helmet on. If not for both of these factors I would have an RSL. I recommend an RSL for almost everyone.

Most of the reasons you gave, IMO, are kinda long shots and really rare. I haven't heard of a broken riser since they started re-enforcing them when the mini risers became "cool" 15-20years ago. Plus many modern rigs have a Collins lanyard to make it a non issue if it does. Things like RSL's snagging or keeping your main attached to you are almost unheard of also.

If you don't want to have one, more power to you. this is a big boy sport and you get to make your own decisions. Act fast...don't get sucked into the basement fighting a mal, and you should be fine.

>IMO, you are raising very rare complicating scenarios where an RSL could >contribute to a fatality (like, less than 1 in several million on any given skydive; >such as an RSL snag causing a premature reserve deployment: exactly how many >fatalites have been due to that?) but ignoring the upside.

I don't think he is. He said pretty explicitly "I know it will help more often than it will hurt."

There are plenty of people who know that a Pilot 140 would be safer than their Katana 97. (And there are a lot more reasons for that, and a lot more incidents that prove that upsizing is even more important than using an RSL.) But they choose to not use the Pilot 140. That's not because they are "ignoring the upside" - they may just prefer the smaller canopy, even knowing the additional risks.

there are more people that have died from not having an RSL hooked up and pounding in, than there are pounding in directly because of having an RSL and issues that arose from it.

The above is my reason to have one too.

In fact, after having used an RSL several times and lucky borrowing a rig several months ago that had a Sky Hook, I just bought a new rig with a Sky Hook. Those on the ground said that I probably cut away too low for an RSL, but the Sky Hook put a canopy above my head almost instantly.

I try to go with the odds and not think of myself as special and better than average.

I broke the right riser set on a canopy at a demo a few years ago, If I would have had an RSL it would have fired the reserve into a wildly spinning main...even after I chopped I was ass over tea kettle for a second or two, with big ole snag grabbers on my head, belly & feet - no thanks!

I had plenty of altitude to get stable, sit up and fired the reserve in exactly the same body position I do the main, I saddled out @ 2200'

An RSL is a useful tool, just not the tool that's best for 'every' job.

Heck...all things considered, I happy to have a reserve that fires off by just pulling the ripcord! I have a few chops that also required a lot of cussing, sharp elbow jabs and a Jesus Cord!!

There are plenty of people who know that a Pilot 140 would be safer than their Katana 97. (And there are a lot more reasons for that, and a lot more incidents that prove that upsizing is even more important than using an RSL.) But they choose to not use the Pilot 140.

Quite right! We all make decisions that result in more or less risk than we might otherwise face. For many, the thrill of a fast canopy outweighs the very definite increase in risk. I am willing to face the risk of my own failure to pull the reserve, but not willing to let an RSL cause problems. Given my other choices, of docile canopies, low WL, not swooping (I don't even use front risers), metal reserve handle...As Billvon implies, my choices I think result in me continuing to accumulate more years of staying above ground level and walking without a limp than the common choice to pursue high performance landings. Instead of expending effort to promote RSLs, we should change the culture that expects a fast increase of WL so as not to be bored.

My memory from threads years ago is that even the old guy with the big beard doesn't like a conventional RSL.

>Instead of expending effort to promote RSLs, we should change the culture that >expects a fast increase of WL so as not to be bored.

Well, we should do both. RSL promotion often gets more "bang for the buck" since RSL's are not seen as uncool the way larger canopies are. (in other words, if you spend 2 hours of your time trying to convince someone to be safer, you are more likely to save a life arguing for an RSL than arguing for a larger canopy.)

My memory from threads years ago is that even the old guy with the big beard doesn't like a conventional RSL.

I have great respect for him, his expertise and his innovation, and I use his products; but that's not the same as someone being a perfectly neutral, disinterested source of informed opinion on that particular subject.

My memory from threads years ago is that even the old guy with the big beard doesn't like a conventional RSL.

I have great respect for him, his expertise and his innovation, and I use his products; but that's not the same as someone being a perfectly neutral, disinterested source of informed opinion on that particular subject.

Nicely summed up. You and Wendy P both make more sense than many of the people with hard ass inflexible opinions here. Those who would scream that newbies shouldn't be given both sides of the argument are just afraid that they will make a decision they disagree with.

I don't use an RSL myself, but I have and I would again possibly. My only argument is with people who plan to disconnect one during a malfunction. My opinion is that you need to make that decision before you board the aircraft.

That's sorta not the point. The mistake is not thinking "I can't afford an AAD so I should connect my RSL" - that is indeed a good idea. The mistake is "if I have an AAD I can disconnect my RSL." I can think of at least two people who died at a WFFC who thought the same thing - and whose AAD did not save them from going in.

There are situations when either wouldmight be beneficial - e.g. have just cutaway and can't find/pull the reserve ripcord.

Depending on how low you pull that cutaway handle, I wouldn't count on the AAD firing if you can't find the handle.

Others have made the point I was trying to make (but I wanted to hear crotalus01's logic, which is why I posed it in the form of a question): evaluating whether to use an AAD or to use an RSL ought to be independent decisions because they don't address the same failure modes. (And to address the person who commented about cost, of course cost can be a factor in evaluating whether to add any piece of non-mandatory gear).

>There are situations when either would be beneficial - e.g. have just >cutaway and can't find/pull the reserve ripcord.

Your AAD will NOT FIRE in most cases like this even if you cut away fairly high (1500 feet or so.) Several fatalities have occurred when people cut away and did not pull their reserves. They had AAD's but no RSL's - and the AAD's did not fire in time.

To repeat - your AAD will NOT FIRE in most cases if you cut away and can't pull the reserve.

Seems like the old timers like to split hairs on this forum and look for exceptions and completely miss the point by trying to show how their exceptions makes the difference.

Sadly a new or inexperienced skydiver will not understand and get confused by this unnecessary noise.

If you are new, inexperienced and learning, which after 30 years, I still feel like I am, get and use an RSL. You are not doing CREW, shooting video or a tandem. Go with the odds... You are average and not exceptional like most of us.

Seems like the old timers like to split hairs on this forum and look for exceptions and completely miss the point by trying to show how their exceptions makes the difference.

Sadly a new or inexperienced skydiver will not understand and get confused by this unnecessary noise.

If you are new, inexperienced and learning, which after 30 years, I still feel like I am, get and use an RSL. You are not doing CREW, shooting video or a tandem. Go with the odds... You are average and not exceptional like most of us.

OK - So you would suggest that a new skydiver not have an RSL, (or skyhook) even though, over the years, there have been incidents just about EVERY YEAR of skydivers cutting away and not pulling the reserve in time!

There are always exceptions, but to continue to look at them as the rule just does not pass the common sense test.

OK - So you would suggest that a new skydiver not have an RSL, (or skyhook) even though, over the years, there have been incidents just about EVERY YEAR of skydivers cutting away and not pulling the reserve in time!

There are always exceptions, but to continue to look at them as the rule just does not pass the common sense test.

In sundevil's defense, you didn't read the /his first post in the thread.

Paraphrasing, he says, "I know that the statistics numbers are against me, and I don't recommend any newbs following my lead. In fact, I realize that I may have increased my odds of death in skydiving by removing my RSL, but I am doing it anyway."

I have to respect that, he is not being hubristic, "it won't happen to me." argument. He is basically saying "I would rather die from my own failings than some freak gear error".

NWFlyer - I never said or implied that the RSL was a good substitute for an AAD. I no longer have an AAD because my Cypres timed out on my last repack and had to be removed. Vigil has pretty much killed the used AAD market since they have a 20 year lifespan, and I dont have $1200 laying around to buy a new one (unfortunately). My reason for hooking the RSL back up is silly - I would rather have some safety backup than none (even though they serve very different functions for very different scenarios. I realize an RSL will not help in a potential Cypres fire type scenario and vice versa). Of course, the RSL will still be detached on CRW jumps...

NWFlyer - I never said or implied that the RSL was a good substitute for an AAD. I no longer have an AAD because my Cypres timed out on my last repack and had to be removed. Vigil has pretty much killed the used AAD market since they have a 20 year lifespan, and I dont have $1200 laying around to buy a new one (unfortunately). My reason for hooking the RSL back up is silly - I would rather have some safety backup than none (even though they serve very different functions for very different scenarios. I realize an RSL will not help in a potential Cypres fire type scenario and vice versa). Of course, the RSL will still be detached on CRW jumps...

Noone is selling used Vigils because they are within 4 or less years of timing out like they did with Cypres. I have been looking at the classifieds AAD board for months now and have yet to see any used anything for sale other than Argus...

You can invent them. The problem is that the more complex you make them, the more testing they require, the more failure modes there are (which means that the users have to think about them also), and the more expensive they are.

For safety equipment, personally I prefer it to be as simple as possible, because then I have fewer complex failure modes to think about.

Noone is selling used Vigils because they are within 4 or less years of timing out like they did with Cypres. I have been looking at the classifieds AAD board for months now and have yet to see any used anything for sale other than Argus...

That's a 2-way street. By the same token that a used Vigil will cost more and be less available, it will also hold its value better and last longer when YOU own it.

It's a wash unless you just want a cheap price and an AAD that will time out and need replaced sooner.

Your AAD will NOT FIRE in most cases like this even if you cut away fairly high (1500 feet or so.) Several fatalities have occurred when people cut away and did not pull their reserves. They had AAD's but no RSL's - and the AAD's did not fire in time.

Thanks for posting this. I assume that a AAD will not fire under this scenario because the skydiver has not re accelerated, however rather than me assume could you point me towards a source of information that would help be get more educated on this.

Your AAD will NOT FIRE in most cases like this even if you cut away fairly high (1500 feet or so.) Several fatalities have occurred when people cut away and did not pull their reserves. They had AAD's but no RSL's - and the AAD's did not fire in time.

Thanks for posting this. I assume that a AAD will not fire under this scenario because the skydiver has not re accelerated, however rather than me assume could you point me towards a source of information that would help be get more educated on this.

Thanks.

You have it right, the AAD will not fire until you reach the fire speed. Then it may not fire if you are under the shut--off height. You should read the manual for your AAD brand because the firing parameters are different. Know your gear, knowledge is power.

One, probably stupid, question. Why does a disarming altitude exist? I can't think in any scenario where it is necessary. Without it in the worse case the AAD fires too low to be useful. In the best case there is an offset (I mean ground offset, not offset in the configuration of the AAD) between the real altitude and the altitude the AAD thinks you are, and in that case it fires high enough to be useful, even though it might think you are too low.

One, probably stupid, question. Why does a disarming altitude exist? I can't think in any scenario where it is necessary. Without it in the worse case the AAD fires too low to be useful. In the best case there is an offset (I mean ground offset, not offset in the configuration of the AAD) between the real altitude and the altitude the AAD thinks you are, and in that case it fires high enough to be useful, even though it might think you are too low.

What about that? Radical dives with speeds exceeding 78 mph (96/102 mph in Cypres Speed) might also happen at an altitude higher than 130ft (330ft). Even if this didn't happen, if I'm not swooping why would I want a disarming altitude?

I understand that the lower you are in your dive, the faster you might be falling. Therefore it is more likely that your speed can exceed the firing speed at the lower point, and a disarming altitude can help to prevent such scenario. But for me I see two problems here: (1) if you initiate your dive higher, just to practice, you can still exceed that speed and "force" an undesired firing; (2) if you are not swooping you won't be in a controlled dive that you can pull out, and therefore you'll be in a fucked up situation that most probably will be slightly better with more nylon.

For (1), you should know your gear and if you are doing such practice you should shutdown your AAD before the jump, like many swoopers do with "non-swooping" AADs. But for (2) I still can't see the point of the disarming altitude.

What about that? Radical dives with speeds exceeding 78 mph (96/102 mph in Cypres Speed) might also happen at an altitude higher than 130ft (330ft). Even if this didn't happen, if I'm not swooping why would I want a disarming altitude?

I understand that the lower you are in your dive, the faster you might be falling. Therefore it is more likely that your speed can exceed the firing speed at the lower point, and a disarming altitude can help to prevent such scenario. But for me I see two problems here: (1) if you initiate your dive higher, just to practice, you can still exceed that speed and "force" an undesired firing; (2) if you are not swooping you won't be in a controlled dive that you can pull out, and therefore you'll be in a fucked up situation that most probably will be slightly better with more nylon.

For (1), you should know your gear and if you are doing such practice you should shutdown your AAD before the jump, like many swoopers do with "non-swooping" AADs. But for (2) I still can't see the point of the disarming altitude.

Someone more knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe the answer is that if your reserve fires while under a functional (though diving/swooping) main with significant altitude, you may have a survivable two-out scenario. If your reserve fires at 80 ft under a functional main, however, you are potentially in a lot more trouble.

I believe the answer is that if your reserve fires while under a functional (though diving/swooping) main with significant altitude, you may have a survivable two-out scenario. If your reserve fires at 80 ft under a functional main, however, you are potentially in a lot more trouble.

Correct, but if you are not swooping there is no way your AAD will fire if you are under a functional main at that altitude. You simply won't have enough speed to trigger it. If you have enough speed you don't have a functional main. Right?

1) So front riser landings will not cause the device to fire. Nowadays, of course, people can hit such speeds well above 130 feet - thus "swoop" versions of AAD's.

2) It's just not helpful to open your reserve at 100 feet at 80mph. You are less than a second from impact. It's not going to do anything.

3) It helps prevent "sudden pressurization" events from causing AAD firings. These can come from an aircraft or even a well-sealed car door being slammed.

1) In "non-swoop" scenarios, can you really be falling at 78mph, at 130ft from the ground, and still land properly? I don't think so. If you are under those circumstances you'll hit the ground quite hard, and an AAD firing won't create a bigger problem.

2) Sure, I absolutely agree, it is not helpful to open it so low. But my whole point is that in some circumstances you might be landing slightly below what the AAD thinks. In those cases, a few more feet can be the difference between pounding hard, with as much nylon above your head as possible, and pounding for the last time. Again, for no swoop scenarios.

well what if that is blown because of some unforseen circumstance? Do you think you would take an RSL at that point? Besides CRW, Camera etc. To not wear an RSL becuase of the super remote chance that it causes more problems is crazy in my humble internet opinion.

Let's ask this question: Do you think it is more likely that you would have an RSL induced mal/problem or find yourself somehow/someway lower than your "adjusted" pull alt.? I think the answer is fairly obvious...

well what if that is blown because of some unforseen circumstance? Do you think you would take an RSL at that point? Besides CRW, Camera etc. To not wear an RSL becuase of the super remote chance that it causes more problems is crazy in my humble internet opinion.

Let's ask this question: Do you think it is more likely that you would have an RSL induced mal/problem or find yourself somehow/someway lower than your "adjusted" pull alt.? I think the answer is fairly obvious...

It might be so in your case, in mine...not so much.

I'm jumping out of an airplane with no AAD & no RSL...my altitude awareness is the single most important thing on my mind.

I haven't busted my hard deck in probably 30 years, before that we use to unpack at a grand for shits & giggles...until I got smart that is.

I've been LOW at terminal a bunch, now that I'm older & wiser is definitely not someplace I'll go again.

So...yes it's significantly more likely I'll have a situation where an RSL would cause me problems than it is I'll find myself low & out of time - needing one. YMMV

- Again, MOST of my jumps are with cameras, demo gear or CReW.

Don't need it, don't want it - that's why they're removable...however I understand the additional safety factor it 'can' offer 'most' people, so I would never recommend someone else do as I do.